Category Archives: Product Management

Is It Really APS If It Uses EOQ?

While I’m not an expert in MPS, I am an expert in optimization, so, needless to say I was taken aback by a statement in this recent TEC bog post on “Sorting Through the ERP, Lean MFG, APS, and MES Clutter” that quoted experts as saying that ERP and APS systems force companies to make runners in EOQs. Now, while I am quite sure that your average ERP will apply EOQ to production scheduling, even though it’s often dead wrong to do so, I would think that a true APS would not be so foolish.

For those of you who aren’t manufacturing experts, here’s a brief guide to the terminology:

  • APS: Advanced Planning and Scheduling – a system or methodology designed to plan plant floor operations to maximize throughput and resource utilization
  • EOQ: Economic Order Quantity – the inventory level expected to minimize total inventory holding and ordering costs
  • ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning – a system used to coordinate all planning and production processes
  • Lean MFG: Lean Manufacturing – a production practice that attempts to eliminate all waste from the production process
  • MES: Manufacturing Execution Systems – a set of systems used to control the manufacturing process on the shop floor
  • MPS: Manufacturing Planning Systems – a set of systems used to plan the manufacturing process with the intent of creating a manageable schedule
  • runner: a product that accounts for the majority of manufacturing workload; on average, 6% of products create 50% of the work
  • WIP: Work in Process – refers to all (raw material) inventory that is currently in the production process

Given that so few products account for so much workload, you would think that these systems would recognize that

  • it’s a must that each production run produce enough of a runner product to meet the total demand for the production period, but
  • producing more runner product adds no relevant value unless enough product is produced to cover the next set of orders (as the line would need to be set up again anyway and it takes time to set up and tear down a production line) and
  • EOQ, which is a measure designed for buyers, is not guaranteed to produce a number anywhere close to an appropriate value, even when order costs are replaced with production-line set-up costs.

As the article states, runners must be produced in optimal order quantities, as this is the only way to maximize the amount of time free to produce the remaining 94% of product. Other products can be scheduled based on a modified EOQ, as order quantities in any given period might not be sufficient to guarantee a profitable run otherwise, but runners and other high-volume runs must be treated differently. And if an “APS” system cannot differentiate between the two types of products, and optimize the run for each type appropriately, I’d argue it’s not an APS at all!

Share This on Linked In

Reverse Logistics Tips from World Trade Magazine

A recent article in World Trade Magazine, “Reverse Logistics: Money Tree or Money Pit?”, had some good suggestions on how to streamline your reverse logistics supply chain to reduce costs and increase customer satisfaction. Quoting a recent study from the Aberdeen Group that found that best-in-class firms reduce return times by over 75%, increase customer satisfaction by 15%, and reduce repair costs by 10%, the article noted that companies best-in-class in reverse logistics have a few things in common.

  1. Standardized Return & Repair Processhodge-podge processes drive up costs
  2. Ability to Recover Costs from Suppliersa contract that allows for the recovery of costs is one thing, the ability to recover those costs is something else
  3. Real-Time Information Retrievalwhen a customer calls, it is imperative to be able to provide them with an update on their return status
  4. Multi-Channel Visibilityreturns can be initiated in the store, on the website, or over the phone, and can be shipped from the store, a reseller, or the home

This leads to the following best practices:

Multi-Channel Visibility

Customers expect a seamless experience. The ability to return an item ordered online to a store or an item bought at a store over the phone if the store is far away is critical. This requires the returns system to be integrated across all of the channels.

Centralized Returns Facility

Reverse logistics goes more smoothly through a dedicated facility which is set up to allow for sorting, testing, repackaging, and shipping of goods to repair centres or supplier distribution centres. These facilities can provide a way of visually identifying common problems quickly and efficiently. Consider the example of the weed whacker manufacturer who was able to identity the reason for a 266% increase in returns by noticing that the switches were white instead of blue, which was the colour of the approved switch.

Quick Problem Identification

Considering that 70% of goods returned as defective actually work, it’s imperative to quickly determine which goods are truly defective and need to go to the repair centre and which goods can be repacked for resale. In addition, with many of today’s products being (built-in) battery powered, many times the problem is just a bad battery, and the repair is as simple as swapping out a defective battery for a good one — something that can be done in the returns depot, saving an expensive return to the repair centre.

Since even the best efforts to improve quality won’t eliminate defects entirely, and since customers will continue to return products that aren’t really defective (or that just need a new battery), it’s important to have a streamlined reverse logistics process to ensure customer satisfaction stays high while costs stay low.

Does Your CSM System Provide Multiple Product Views?

A recent white paper by Dassault Systemes on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) hit the nail on the head when it asked, near the back of the paper, if your Component Supplier Management system supported multiple views? Specifically, the paper on “Component Supplier Management” (CSM) identified three views that your PLM / CSM system has to support if you want it to be adopted across the organization and utilized across the product lifecycle:

  • system (logical)to enable distributed and cross-organization design activities
  • physical (EBOM: engineering bill-of-materal)to enable component identification, selection, and standardization
  • financial (BOM: manufacturing bill-of-analysis)to enble supplier identification, selection, management and (strategic) sourcing activities

The reality is that PLM is a very involved process that not only touches most of the orgnization, but impacts most of the organizational functions. As a result, it needs to either support most of those functions or capture the data required by those functions and/or integrate with other organizational systems that capture the necessary data and/or accomplish the relevant functions in order to be useful, because PLM is not a function that can be siloed into any one organization. Keep this in mind when selecting your next PLM system.

Quality DOES NOT Equal Risk Management

Every now and again I see a headline that causes me to foam at the mouth. One of the most recent examples is a recent article in Industry Week titled “Quality Equals Risk Management”. While I’m generally a fan of this publication, I can’t stand it when a headline makes such an erroneous claim.

Quality is a by-product of proper Risk Management. Quality Control is an aspect of proper Risk Management. But even Quality Control does not equal Risk Management! Risk Management is a broad initiative that looks at, and attempts to mitigate, all of the risks in your physical, financial, and information supply chains. This includes managing financial risks around currency exchange, commodity prices, and economic instability. Environmental risks around natural disasters, climate change, and accidents involving hazardous materials. Political risks involving terrorism, the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), failing states, and crime. Compliance and Regulatory risks stemming from globalization, expansion and restriction of trade, and regional instability. Workforce risks from infectious and chronic diseases, pandemics, and liability regimes. And other product risks from lack of raw materials, transportation breakdowns, and theft. Quality is just one aspect of risk — and quality control is just one aspect of risk management!

All quality suggests is that you have good quality control programs in place — but it doesn’t even guarantee that! It might mean you have a high quality supplier who takes pride in their work and goes the extra mile to insure quality despite your shoddy practices. And while the article is right in that quality is the most powerful when it is engaged to prevent defects instead of detecting them after the fact, it is still only one aspect of a well rounded risk management program.

Share This on Linked In

For True Innovation …

Ditch the budget. First of all, as per this Financial Times article, there is no correlation between R&D spend and innovation success. Secondly, as per a recent Harvard Business Review blog post on “get your team out of the innovation lull”, fixing an innovation budget puts your people into a mindset that their innovation is limited to the budget they have. Third, and most important, while you can budget the cost of product development (based on what the market is expected to bear), you can’t budget the cost of innovation. That relies as much on inspiration as it does perspiration.

Plus, and this is key, you can’t “innovate” a new product until you know what is, and is not, doable. That’s why it’s ridiculous to tie the research and development budgets together. They should be separate. While the two units should come together regularly to collaborate on research directions (i.e. “this is what we’d like to build, what’s possible”) and product directions (i.e. “this is what we’ve [sort-of] figured out, what do you think you can use and sell, and we’ll focus on improving that”), research should be free from distracting day-to-day product development, market, and associated budget constraints so they can focus on figuring out what can be done and, once development has identified certain capabilities as currently marketable, how (cost) efficiently it can be done.

Now, I’m not saying Research shouldn’t have a budget, as it should, but that budget should be at the department level, and not the researcher / research project level, and it should be up to the director(s) to figure out how best to allocate it on an on-going basis. For instance, if a team requests a purchase of a new piece of hardware that would be generally applicable to multiple research projects, then even if it exceeds the typical hardware investment, the director(s) can choose to allow the purchase and then spend less elsewhere. But if a certain costly request would not be generally applicable, the director(s) can choose to deny the request and urge the investigator(s) to innovate a more cost effective way to obtain what is needed for an experiment or investigation. In other words, we need to return to the innovation lab model, where productive researchers and true innovators aren’t spending all their time worrying about budgets … because when you’re worrying about budgets, you’re not getting anything done. GE understood that, and that’s why they did so well for so many years. Not only did they give their top people the budgets they needed to be effective, but they paid also paid their top people very well so they wouldn’t have to worry about money in their personal life. While “what can we do for 20% less” is inspiring, nothing kills an innovation mindset faster than if the team is constantly stressed about money.

Share This on Linked In